Higher Courts Frequently Reject Judge Basden’s Rulings

In recent weeks, the public has been embroiled in a heated community discussion regarding the conduct of Superior Court Judge Brent Basden. Investigative reporting has exposed a series of controversial administrative decisions, including Basden’s appointment of his close friend and former business partner, Lane Wolfley, to represent an accused murderer at public expense.

This appointment occurred despite Wolfley’s documented history of professional misconduct, including a suspension for sexually exploiting a client.

Further scrutiny revealed that Basden proceeded with the hiring of Commissioner Parker, despite being aware that the Everett Police Department arrested Parker on perjury charges.

In response to these reports, Basden lashed out from the bench, characterizing the press scrutiny as “cyberbullying.”

While Basden’s administrative choices have raised serious ethical questions, they also compel a closer examination of his performance on the bench. Does this pattern of questionable judgment extend to his actual courtroom rulings?

The Role of the Court of Appeals

To objectively assess a judge’s competence, one must look to the appellate record. In the Washington State justice system, the Court of Appeals serves as a critical safeguard against judicial error.

Defendants have the right to appeal their convictions or sentences. The appellate court reviews the trial record to ensure that the proceedings adhered to constitutional requirements and state laws. When an appellate court “reverses” or “remands” a decision, it is often a corrective measure taken because the trial judge failed to properly apply the law, potentially violating a defendant’s rights or imposing unauthorized penalties. Frequent reversals can indicate a troubling disconnect between a judge’s rulings and the established rule of law.

A Review of Four Cases

We reviewed four randomly selected cases in which Basden’s rulings were challenged. These cases cover a wide spectrum of law, ranging from failure to register as a sex offender to human trafficking and custodial assault.

Missing Witness Instruction

In State v. Zergman, the Court of Appeals reversed a conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, finding that Judge Basden abused his discretion by issuing a “missing witness” jury instruction.

The legal error occurred after Zergman declined to call his girlfriend, Eleta McClary-Wise, to testify, despite her being present in the courtroom for the duration of the trial.

Judge Basden granted the prosecution’s request to instruct the jury that they could infer McClary-Wise’s testimony would have been unfavorable to Zergman. Basden justified the ruling by finding that the witness was “peculiarly available” to the defense and that a “community of interest” existed between her and the defendant.

The appellate court rejected this reasoning, holding that the witness was “equally available to both parties” and that the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion. The judges noted that the State was fully aware of the witness’s potential testimony and observed her sitting in the courtroom, yet chose not to call her. The opinion emphasized that the instruction unfairly allowed the jury to blame the witness’s absence entirely on the defendant.

The court further ruled that Basden’s error was not harmless because the evidence against Zergman was “not particularly strong” and relied on witnesses who gave inconsistent statements and may have been pressured by their property manager to testify falsely. As a result of the erroneous instruction, the conviction was reversed.

Violated Constitutional Right to Fair Trial

Resulting from a 2023 incident at a Port Angeles shipyard, Jeffrey McGee was sentenced to 14 months in confinement for assault, resisting arrest, and making false statements. The Washington State Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded it back to the trial court, which later dismissed the case without prejudice.

The issue in question occurred the morning after closing arguments. A seated juror called in sick. In response, court staff unilaterally discharged the juror and recalled a temporarily excused alternate to take their place. The substitution happened entirely off the record, and neither the prosecutors, the defense attorney, nor Judge Basden were informed until the new jury had already gathered.

When the unauthorized swap was discovered, Judge Basden did not correct the error or express concern over the breach of protocol. Instead, he retroactively approved the staff’s decision.

“I think what actually happened was appropriate. It happened without our involvement which is something to work on, but I believe the process was the appropriate process that was followed and so I don’t see any reason not to continue and bring in the jury.” Basden stated at the time, asserting that had he been involved, he would have made the same decision. He told counsel, “I don’t see any reason not to continue.”

But the Court of Appeals offered a sharp rebuke. In their reversal, the appellate judges noted that replacing a juror after the case has been submitted is a matter implicating the defendant’s constitutional right to an impartial jury.

Because the alternate juror had been temporarily excused, the law required Basden to verify they had been shielded from outside influence before letting them deliberate.

The appellate court noted that Basden “compounded” the error by failing to conduct an inquiry even after he learned of the substitution, leaving the record silent on whether the jury remained impartial.

Rather than attempting to retry the case following the reversal, the State moved to dismiss the charges. While the dismissal is without prejudice, meaning charges could theoretically be refiled, the outcome highlights the high cost of procedural looseness. A trial that resulted in a guilty verdict has ultimately amounted to nothing, with the initial judicial oversight proving fatal.

Human Trafficking and Rape

In the case of State v. Patrick Michael Callahan, the defendant was convicted by a jury of second-degree human trafficking, sexual misconduct, and rape involving a minor he had brought from California to Port Angeles.

While the Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the trafficking conviction, rejecting Callahan’s argument that “commercial sex acts” require a third-party buyer, the appellate court identified errors in Judge Basden’s imposition of financial obligations.

During the January 2023 sentencing, the trial court imposed Department of Corrections supervision fees as a condition of Callahan’s community custody. However, the legislature had already amended the law to eliminate these supervision fees.

The appellate court noted that because the statute had been amended before Callahan was sentenced, “the trial court should not have imposed those fees.”

The case was remanded to the trial court to strike the invalid DOC fees from the judgment and sentence. Additionally, the court was ordered to strike the victim penalty assessment and DNA collection fee, which had become inapplicable due to legislative updates that took effect while the appeal was pending. Although the primary conviction stood, the case required appellate intervention to correct sentencing terms that failed to align with current state law.

Custodial Assault

In the case of State v. Jesse Ray Landrum, the Court of Appeals once again found it necessary to intervene in a sentencing decision issued by Basden. On September 14, 2022, a jury found Landrum guilty of custodial assault, leading the trial court to impose a standard range sentence. However, the lower court’s handling of the defendant’s financial obligations triggered a reversal.

Despite the trial court explicitly entering a finding that Landrum was indigent, it nevertheless imposed a CVPA penalty assessment against him. Basden’s decision failed to withstand appellate review.

Effective July 1, 2023, the Washington State legislature amended the law to strip trial courts of the authority to impose the CVPA on indigent defendants. Because case law dictates that legislative changes to legal financial obligations apply to all cases still on direct appeal, the appellate court determined that the penalty could not stand.

Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the imposition of the fee and remanded the case back to the trial court with instructions to strike the CVPA. Once again, a trial court ruling resulted in the expenditure of appellate resources to correct a sentence that was ultimately incompatible with state law.

A Broader Pattern of Questionable Judgment

While appellate reversals are a part of the judicial system, the frequency and nature of these errors—ranging from violated constitutional rights to the imposition of illegal fees—establish a troubling baseline for Judge Basden’s performance on the bench. These courtroom errors appear to be only one symptom of a deeper issue regarding Basden’s exercise of judicial discretion.

Recent reporting suggests this pattern of questionable judgment extends beyond case rulings and into his administrative decisions, specifically regarding the appointment of close associates to taxpayer-funded positions.

The same “procedural looseness” identified by the Court of Appeals in cases like State v. McGee mirrors the lack of rigorous vetting in Basden’s hiring practices, such as Basden appointing Commissioner Parker, despite significant concerns.

Similarly, Basden used his discretion to appoint his former business partner and close friend, Lane Wolfley, to represent an accused murderer at a rate of $250 per hour, which occurred despite Wolfley’s documented history of professional misconduct, including a suspension for sexually exploiting a client.

The High Cost to Taxpayers and Public Trust

The implications of these decisions are both financial and ethical. The errors in Basden’s courtroom also result in tangible costs to Clallam County taxpayers.

The appellate record demonstrates that Judge Basden’s rulings frequently require correction from higher courts to ensure they align with the law. When viewed alongside his administrative choices to hire friends with troubling disciplinary records, a unified picture emerges: one of a judiciary where personal relationships and procedural lapses may be superseding the rigorous standards of justice.

As appellate judges continue to police the legal boundaries of Basden’s courtroom, the citizens of Clallam County are left to bear the cost of the errors that remain.